More hearings requested in power plant process
BURRILLVILLE – The Conservation Law Foundation is asking the state Energy Facility Siting Board to rehear a motion to dismiss Invenergy Thermal Development’s power plant application – a motion that was denied by the state panel last year – saying Invenergy’s recent request to have an additional public hearing in Burrillville on its new water supply supports the CLF’s long held argument that water plan renders the application a new application.
On Thursday, Invenergy, the Illinois company that is seeking a permit to build the $700 million gas-powered cogeneration plant in
Pascoag, notified the EFSB that it wants the panel to set up another public hearing in town in December
“As a result of modifications to its application since the initial public hearing on March 31, 2016, Invenergy requests the opportunity to present for public comment the contents of its application… inclusive of the Water Supply Plan filed on Jan. 11, 2017 and the supplement filed on Sept. 28, 2017,” Invenergy lawyer Richard Beretta wrote in a letter to the EFSB.
Invenergy is apparently concerned about meeting is statutory requirements to fully air the details of its water supply plan – parts of which remain under legal threat and political attack.
In the supplement to the plan referenced in Beretta’s letter, Invenergy announced that it had secured the Narragansett Indian Tribe and Benn Water and Heavy Transport, a pool-filling company in Hopkinton, as backup sources for water. The deal with the Narragansetts subsequently fell into question after members of the tribe claimed the deal is unlawful, saying it had been made improperly by the chief without the consent of the tribe. The issue remains unresolved.
“The Conservation Law Foundation agrees with Invenergy that the modification to Invenergy’s proposal, including Invenergy’s new water plan, render the currently pending application a new application, requiring a new hearing,” Jerry Elmer, senior attorney for the CLF said in his letter Thursday to the EFSB. “This is exactly the argument the CLF made to the EFSB in support of its motion to dismiss the application and close the docket in September of 2016.”
“At that time, the CLF variously urged the EFSB to dismiss the proceedings or take account of the new [plan by obtaining appropriate new advisory opinions because Invenergy’s new water plan was sufficiently material that it rendered the entire propos- al a new proposal,” Elmer writes.
In September of last year, EFSB voted to deny separate motions by Burrillville and the Conservation Law Foundation to dismiss Invenergy’s application. The town’s original motion to dismiss was filed on the grounds that Invenergy’s application was incomplete and did not include information regarding all required support facilities, including water resources.
In light of the request by Invernergy to hold another hearing in Burrillville, Elmer is requesting a rehearing on its earlier Sept. 16, 2016 motion to dismiss.
“CLF’s motion was predicated on multiple material differences between Invenergy’s original proposal and the new proposal then before the board, including the new water plan,” Elmer said. “Invenergy has no told the EFSB that it (belatedly) agrees with CLF concerning the material nature of Invenergy’s changes from its original proposal.”
After learning of Invenergy’s deal with the Narragansetts, the town of Charlestown also sought intervenor status on Invenergy’s petition for a per- mit from the EFSB. On Tuesday, during a lightning round of decisions on procedural motions, the EFSB granted Charlestown’s petition, which means the town is also entitled to a public hearing on the permit.